Christian Pacifism - Comments by Marijonas Vilkelis - 17 Jan 2002: Comments and Discussions - Questions and Answers: Archive of all-creatures.org and Veg-Christian,vegetarian, vegan, cruelty free, God, Jesus, Christ, Holy Spirit, Bible, extra Biblical, love, compassion, heart, heaven, hell, human,

Our subjects cover: religion (Christian, Jewish and others); diet and lifestyle (vegan and vegetarian); and other miscellaneous subjects.

Christian Pacifism was a term used by Jim to presumably encompass an opposition view to the current war waged by the Bush Administration. I would prefer to use Frank's term - non-violence, although that too can have its short comings.

Non-violence is a very general term and clearly covers a wide diversity of forms. The variety of non-violence that Jesus taught has rarely been effectively applied by people professing to be Christian and is widely regarded as impractical or too idealistic for an imperfect world. I suppose this is one area of applied Christianity which effectively swells the ranks of Sunday (only) Christians.

If we were in an ideal world, there would be no need for pacifism. There's no suggestion that applied Jesus-style-pacifism is either easy or a risk-free procedure. It is no less an aspect of the cross we should bear than any other remedial procedure for human brokenness. Pacifism is an essential remedial process for the world as we find it. It is an applied complex of almost every virtue we still have access to - compassion, kindness, forgiveness, gentleness to name a few.

There has to be meaning and purpose in Christian work done in this world. The main ethic behind good-willed human blood sweat and tears is the re-building of what is humanly possible of this human desecrated world. Pacifism gives an edge of progress in human work. Pacifism is not cowardice or dithering and wringing of hands. Indeed, waging war is all these things, if not the ultimate cowardice. Pacifism is dealing with a situation but poising the mind and will not to kill or maim. Killing, and maiming never solve our problems although they may give the illusion of doing so when they temporarily delay a particular onslaught - but only until it returns more viciously and in another form.

Acting passively does not necessarily prevent death and maiming, but these outcomes, if they occur, are essentially un-intended by-products of the non-violent action. The bad effects must not be intended and the good that comes from the passive action cannot essentially depend on the bad effect having occurred.

Hypothetical case studies (what would someone do in this or that situation) of pacifist action are very imperfect observations because the status and mind set of the person or community being assailed is intrinsic to the reason the attack is happening. It is almost impossible to construct a model with this complexity. Negotiation, diplomacy and hindsight are probably the best tools to learn the meaning of an attack and to reduce the chances of a repeat action. Obviously pride and arrogance will make such action increasingly difficult. If attacks upon us are random and unassociated to our status like many people try to argue, then Jesus was nuts in telling us to turn the other cheek. There is always a reason for such events, even if it originates from earlier generations. Turning the other cheek is a true healing procedure because it absorbs and transforms the disease from its source.

Pacifism or non-violence can certainly bring suffering upon those who apply them, but faith tells me that in the end, the suffering will be infinitely less than if violence is used as a solution.

Isaiah writes about the Messiah as being "The Prince of Peace" (Isaiah 9:6). Jesus calls upon all believers to become peacemakers, and says, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons [children] of God" (Matthew 5:9). Paul writes, "For the anxious longings of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons [children] of God" (Romans 8:19).